Published 11:43 pm, Saturday, May 4, 2013

After reading his Time magazine piece regarding the balance of safety and freedom, I found myself on the phone verifying his Harvard degree. If a feeble-minded state school graduate can grasp the importance of the Constitution to a constitutional republic, why can't he?

I seem to have missed the lecture in constitutional law discussing the right of the people to watch marathons and live in close proximity to fertilizer factories (I dropped out of law school after the first year).

Mr. Grunwald utilizes rationale based on emotional appeal rather than logic to conclude: "But I think it would be logical for our government to try to limit these tragedies in the future. We already sacrifice liberty all the time. ..." Therein lies the problem; the government is only sacrificing our freedoms to try to limit these tragedies.

Do or do not, there is no try. To prevent school shootings, we have created gun-free zones, restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms onto any building whose primary function is education. Every single mass shooting since 1950 (except one) has occurred in one of these "gun-free zones." We take our shoes off and allow "agents" qualified by a GED and clean drug tests to grope us to prevent another 9/11. Since the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, it has caught exactly zero terrorists.

If the government knows it is not preventing tragedies, why does it continue to infringe upon our freedoms?